Skip to main content
news

Re: Eric will argue about e...

Eric Stevens
SubjectRe: Eric will argue about everything, for days (was: Re: Adobe's Low hanging)
FromEric Stevens
Date08/09/2014 11:24 (08/09/2014 21:24)
Message-ID<tppbu957vohlbafeqh13s7h8k3nu9suq2g@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (1h) > Eric Stevens

On 9 Aug 2014 08:22:59 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <v1pau9dklc0mudg7h3p7l34ib35bg1ddlf@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

In article <kl49u99es0ugdqq6cabv0onbm7kmuuvl04@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

I have complained in the past about your use of surreptitious deletions.

Eric Stevens
Message-ID: <b4css9945d90tihce5g698fv61n75okkt5@4ax.com>

"Which is more than you can say of your surreptitious deletions."

Message-ID: <98ots910c2bfn89gbh88ph9hojdjhciqkt@4ax.com> "Why bother to comment when you have surreptitiously deleted relevant text?"

"We have been round this so many times that I'm quite sick of it. I am particularly sick of the dishonest way in which you delete text and try to twist what other people have said. "

I have identified the places in articles where you have surreptitiously deleted text:

Message-ID: <jq74t9537bumrh2efj5i3mo5f8mblq85po@4ax.com> and Message-ID: <6cr5t99jk81dj7vg2a3ieu8oa63boj2hdd@4ax.com>

In response to Tony Cooper I have written of you:

" He makes his arguments by hidden deletions and distortions which although created by Sandman look as though they come from the other party. That way he does his best to ensure he is on the winning side."

Up to now, all that you have said in your defence is:

Message-ID: <slrnlssds7.mir.mr@irc.sandman.net> "I trim posts. What parts are you missing?"

Now, you are most upset that I have given you an article in which I replaced and identified the parts that you had removed. You have accused me of messing things up. You have accused me of creative editing. You have accused me of cutting and pasting things way out of context. Someone who knew nothing about all this could be forgiven for thinking I was guilty of forging and uttering a fictitious document. In fact, all I have done is put back the text which you had surreptitiously removed.

You live in a bizarre world.

Sandman
And I have complained about your creative editing of quoted material. It's a troll tactic, to cut and paste text to make it appear to have said something it didn't in the post you were responding to.

Eric Stevens
Yes it is. That's why I'm complaining about it.

Sandman
No you're not, you're performing it.

Eric Stevens:

Eric Stevens
Read above: I've been complaining about it for some time. Keep up wwith this surreptitious snipping if you want to. It doesn't bother me. I've got a macro to restore it.

Sandman
You're so much of a troll that you have a macro set up to edit the quoted material of the posts you're responding to? That's pretty amazing commitment to being a complete asshole!

Eric Stevens
I have to ask what kind of person is it who thinks that restoring unaltered the relevant original text is the action of a troll?

Could it be that it is the action of a person why wishes to imply by the nature of his response that the original text said something other than it did? No, it could hardly be that, could it?

Sandman
"action of a person why wishes"? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote editing is a troll tactic, yes. You have done it many times now.

I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Could it be that it is the action of a person why wishes to imply by the nature of his response that the original text said something other than it did? No, it could hardly be that, could it?

I'm sure you can understand the import of my comment now. There is no 'quote editing'. There is only response distortion. --

Regards,

Eric Stevens